EPTTo says altruism doesn't exist makes me think strange of you, since you've apparently never felt the warm-fuzzies of helping someone just because they needed it =[
Am I being selfish? - Page 2
| Blogs > kdog3683 |
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
To says altruism doesn't exist makes me think strange of you, since you've apparently never felt the warm-fuzzies of helping someone just because they needed it =[ | ||
|
Archaic
United States4024 Posts
^^ Karma doesn't exist, my friend. | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
On November 29 2008 22:22 niteReloaded wrote: There is no good or bad. Doing something because it feels right (when it doesn't feel good) is wrong IMO. Because you still do it for SOME reason. To be perceived as a good guy? lame... No....not necessarily. For example, I got this girl i like with this guy i also like. Not to be perceived as a good guy, but because they would be happier this way. And everyone has situations like those, where they give up something because it makes people they care about happier, or because its just the right thing to do. Haven't you ever done something because it was right, not because it was fun for you? | ||
|
jgad
Canada899 Posts
On November 30 2008 01:50 HeadBangaa wrote: Altruism is apparent in the animal kingdom, even in contexts that have no potential for reciprocity. It's an evolved trait and a basic sign of culture; when the individuals begin to think more like a collective, that gives them an advantage. To says altruism doesn't exist makes me think strange of you, since you've apparently never felt the warm-fuzzies of helping someone just because they needed it =[ The point is that those warm fuzzies are nothing more than genetically encoded responses which have evolved on the sole basis that cooperation is mutually beneficial. In other words, your genes have built such responses into your brain because, in human society, it increases your chances of survival to be nice to other people - a selfish motive. More properly, I suppose, is to say that genes which did not build such responses into their hosts failed to create hosts which survived to reproduce. It's not something we have to cultivate - there's no work involved to get the warm fuzzy feeling. It happens automatically. I'm interested to hear these examples of pure altrusm in the animal kingdom, though. Aside from kin selection - parents or siblings of animals giving their life for each other - I don't think pure altruism exists in nature. Even kin selection is essentially selfish if, like Dawkins, we consider the gene to be the fundamental unit. Parents protecting children is still an act of self-preservation, since the children represent the legacy of the family genes. There is always something gained by both parties in nature, I think. | ||
|
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
On November 30 2008 02:34 jgad wrote: The point is that those warm fuzzies are nothing more than genetically encoded responses which have evolved on the sole basis that cooperation is mutually beneficial. I'm interested to hear these examples of pure altrusm in the animal kingdom, though. Aside from kin selection - parents or siblings of animals giving their life for each other - I don't think pure altruism exists in nature. Even kin selection is essentially selfish if, like Dawkins, we consider the gene to be the fundamental unit. Parents protecting children is still an act of self-preservation, since the children represent the legacy of the family genes. There is always something gained by both parties in nature, I think. Monkeys take care of the disable who give no benefit to their society. EDIT: My debate coach did her thesis on this, and essentially the idea is that because altruism is beneficial, those communities which have the capacity to be altruistic have survived. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
| ||
|
jgad
Canada899 Posts
| ||
|
clazziquai
6685 Posts
| ||
cgrinker
United States3824 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
if you aren't being put to a decision in the first place there won't be much karmic result | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/robert_wright_on_optimism.html ~ he makes a case for "self interest" as the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On November 30 2008 04:31 travis wrote: I think the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is the understanding that the only thing separating your experiences and the experiences of another is "when" and "where". If you mean empathy just say so. You're always making stuff much more complicated than it is. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On November 30 2008 01:50 HeadBangaa wrote: Altruism is apparent in the animal kingdom, even in contexts that have no potential for reciprocity. It's an evolved trait and a basic sign of culture; when the individuals begin to think more like a collective, that gives them an advantage. To says altruism doesn't exist makes me think strange of you, since you've apparently never felt the warm-fuzzies of helping someone just because they needed it =[ Then you do it since your brain gives you marijuana afterwards, which is still a selfish goal. | ||
|
ManBearPig
Belgium207 Posts
And yeah travis jesus if you wanna convey a thought try to make it as clear as possible, stop with the enigmas already lol | ||
|
RoieTRS
United States2569 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On November 30 2008 04:53 ManBearPig wrote: Just because an act is followed by a pleasant feeling doesn't mean you did it because of that. Yes it does, the intention of doing it from the start was because you are after that feeling. Selfishness or selflessness have nothing to do with intentions, its just that you are being "selfish" when others are hurt in some way by your actions while "selfless" is when your actions also helps others. However all actions are done to get the best results for themselves, and therefore can be seen as selfish. If you seriously thought that you would be happier if you killed a lot of people you would kill those people, but due to our emotions and a lot of such things we get a lot of negative feedback from killing people and thus you do not get happier from it. Our emotions rewards us for helping those who we see as important for us.(Aka they help you in some way) These actions can seem selfless but they really aren't, they are just a part of the game everyone is playing called "Trying to get the most mental rewards as possible in life", and everyone do their best to try to maximize their score in that game, none is doing anything which they themselves see as sub optimal ways to achieve that, that is an impossibility. Being lazy just means that in your eyes the extra rest is worth more than the rewards given by working etc. | ||
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On November 30 2008 04:39 Frits wrote: If you mean empathy just say so. You're always making stuff much more complicated than it is. Well because he didn't mean "empathy" but something more basic and simple.. in fact he actually is tacitly implying empathy is redundant. i.e. he is implying we are all essentially similar, or the same, and under the same circumstances our experiences would be similar, thus making empathy redundant. The opposite of course is also tacitly implied - that under different circumstances, our experiences are obviously different, making empathy ever more valid.. and hence his claim that the ultimate drive force for good and a higher morality is understanding.. in his example, understanding of circumstance and the fact that we are all the same i.e. humans bound by our nature. | ||
| ||
